Belgian Chamber approves bill on home visits for foreign nationals

Following ten hours of intense debates stretching across two days, the Belgian Chamber approved the controversial bill on home visits. The legislation passed during a plenary session with support from the Arizona majority parties and Anders, while the Vlaams Belang abstained, and the PS, PTB, Ecolo-Groen, and DéFI voted against the measure.

The Legal Mechanism and Restrictions of Home Inspections

The newly approved text empowers the Immigration Office to request police intervention inside private residences to arrest foreign nationals who possess an active order to leave the territory and face expulsion. The law requires strict cumulative conditions before an inspection can occur. Authorities must demonstrate a refusal to cooperate with repatriation efforts alongside reasonable grounds to believe the individual poses a threat to public order or national security.

An investigative judge must grant prior authorization before any entry takes place. The procedure mirrors a judicial search, permitting police officers to seize any documents that establish the identity of the target individual. Lawmakers restricted these operations to daytime hours between 5:00 AM and 9:00 PM.

Political Divisions and Parliamentary Debate

Khalil Aouasti of the PS warned during the plenary that moving forward without a stable majority transforms the vote into a pure act of individual political adhesion. Conversely, Les Engagés defended the final text, with group leader Aurore Tourneur emphasizing that illegal stay alone does not trigger an inspection.

Denis Ducarme of the MR referenced data from the Coordination and Threat Analysis Organ, noting that roughly 40 individuals on terrorist and radicalization watchlists could potentially fall under the scope of the law. Ducarme stated he would feel satisfied if executing even a dozen home visits annually successfully prevented a bomb from exploding. Meanwhile, opposition figures forcefully challenged the practical necessity of the bill.

This remains a difficult text that can alienate people, but it is necessary to end public impotence regarding certain decisions.
Denis Ducarme

Claire Hugon Lecharlier criticized the majority for failing to provide concrete examples of individuals targeted who could not already be detained through existing legal channels. In contrast, Maaike De Vreese of the N-VA defended the necessity of the tool by explicitly pointing to serious criminals, prompting sharp exchanges across the chamber floor.

Demonstrators Flood Brussels Streets to Protest the Legislation

Opposition to the legislation extended far beyond parliament, drawing massive crowds of citizens, migrant support networks, trade unions, the bar association, and the Centre d’action laïque into the streets of Brussels. Critics organized large-scale demonstrations, including a prominent human chain near the Poelaert Palace, warning that the policy undermines constitutional privacy protections and the inviolability of the home.

During the proceedings, activists in the public gallery dropped flyers bearing the slogan “No Ice in Belgium” before being forcibly removed. Opponents continuously drew parallels between the Belgian measures and United States immigration enforcement, though members of the governing majority dismissed those comparisons as pure populism.

Local municipalities and housing networks expressed grave concern over the legal vulnerability of citizens who open their homes to undocumented individuals. While politicians supporting the bill insisted that humanitarian solidarity remains untouched by the legislation, critics argued the framework effectively drives community assistance underground by criminalizing the fear of state intrusion.